5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod region.
6.  On 27 June 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having produced and distributed child pornography.
7.  On 29 June 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:
“... [the applicant] is suspected of a serious offence ... entailing a custodial sentence exceeding two years. Regard being had to the circumstances of the case concerning [the distribution of child pornography], the [applicant’s] character, and the fact that he applied for a passport, the court considers that if at liberty [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice by way of communicating by e‑mail with the persons who purchased pornographic materials from him. Accordingly, the court considers that it is necessary to remand [the applicant] in custody. The court does not consider it possible to apply any other preventive measure.”
8.  On 22 August 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 October 2007 noting as follows:
“... [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence ... entailing a custodial sentence exceeding two years. Regard being had to the circumstances of the case, the [applicant’s] character, the fact that he previously lived in Lithuania and that he worked for a considerable period of time in law enforcement and has extensive connections with the police, the court considers that, if at liberty, [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice ... The court does not consider it possible to apply any other preventive measure.”
9.  On 3 October 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 9 November 2007 noting that the circumstances underlying the applicant’s detention pending investigation were still pertinent. On 12 October 2007 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld the court order of 3 October 2007 on appeal.
10.  On 6 November 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 9 December 2007 referring to the seriousness of the charges against him and his prior service in law enforcement. On 26 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld that court order on appeal.
11.  On 6 and 24 December 2007 the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 December 2007 and 27 January 2008 respectively. The court noted that the circumstances underlying the applicant’s detention pending investigation were still pertinent. On 6 January 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the court order of 24 December 2007 on appeal.
12.  On 25 January 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 February 2008. The court noted as follows:
“Regard being had to the ongoing investigation, the seriousness of the charges against [the applicant] ... and the fact that he might abscond, put pressure on the victim and witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice, the court considers it necessary ... to extend the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention ...”
13.  On 4 February 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the court order of 25 January 2008 on appeal, citing the applicant’s exclusion from the court hearing, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court ordered the applicant’s release dismissing the argument that the applicant “might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice” as unsubstantiated. It also noted that, in contravention of the rules of criminal procedure, the detention hearing of 25 January 2008 had been held without the applicant’s legal counsel being present as he had not been duly notified of the time and place.
14.  On 8 February 2008 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case reclassified the charges against the applicant and ordered him to be detained for forty-eight hours. On 10 February 2008 the applicant was released.
15.  On 12 February 2008 the District Court again authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation until 27 February 2008. The court noted as follows:
“Regard being had to the ongoing investigation ..., the seriousness of the charges against [the applicant] ... and the fact that he might abscond, put pressure on the underage victim, who, owing to his age and medical condition, might be influenced by an adult, the court considers it necessary to extend the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention ...”
16.  On 22 February 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the court order of 12 February 2008 on appeal.
17.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with several counts of child molestation.
18.  On 26 February 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 27 March 2008 with reference to the seriousness of the charges, and the risk of his absconding or putting pressure on the underage victim of the crime. On 14 March 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the court order of 26 February 2008 on appeal.
19.  On 27 March 2008 the applicant was released upon expiry of the statutory maximum period for pre-trial detention.
20.  On 28 March 2008 the District Court dismissed the investigator’s application for the applicant’s detention pending trial and ordered the latter to post bail in the amount of 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB). On 31 March 2008 the applicant’s father put up that amount as bail.
21.  On an unspecified date the District Court received the case file and fixed the preliminary hearing for 25 July 2008.
22.  On 25 July 2008 the District Court found that the prosecutor had failed to duly authorise the extension of the period of detention pending the investigation of the case and returned the case file to the prosecutor’s office. On 4 September 2008 the Supreme Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination.
23.  On 2 October 2008 the District Court fixed the trial for 15 October 2008.
24.  On 12 April 2010 the District Court granted the prosecutor’s request to remand the applicant in custody pending trial. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:
“In the course of the trial ... since 1 April 2009 [the applicant] has wilfully and frivolously interfered with the administration of justice.
Even though [the applicant] was able to participate in the court hearings, he did not appear in court during the periods from 17 to 31 December 2009 and from 13 to 22 January 2010. Nor did [the applicant] appear in court from 6 to 9 April 2010.
The fact that [the applicant] was fit to attend the hearings is confirmed by the statements made by the chief physician of [the municipal hospital] on 15 January ... and 7 April 2010 ...
Furthermore, it appears from the statement made by O.N., the father of the underage victim, A.N., also signed by A.N. and received by the court on 9 April 2010, that [the applicant] constantly put pressure on their family. Without explanation, [the applicant] made them sign various documents and prevented them from participating in the court hearings. They asked the court to protect them from [the applicant].
The court perceives with certain scepticism the written statement made by A.N., his parents and their counsel ... whereby they do not agree with the [applicant’] detention pending trial. The court takes into account that [the applicant] lives next door to the underage victim and can put pressure on [him] and his parents.
As can be seen from the case file, [the applicant] is charged with [serious offences] entailing a custodial sentence of between two and fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges and to the fact that [the applicant] lives next door to the underage victim and can put pressure on [him] and his parents, the court considers that, if at liberty, [the applicant] might interfere with the administration of justice and put pressure on [A.N.] ...”
25.  According to the Government, on 14 April 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 April 2010. On 16 April 2010 the District Court granted the applicant’s request to study the case file in order to prepare for the appeal hearing. On 20 May 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 12 April 2010 on appeal.
26.  On 5 July 2010 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of production and distribution of child pornography, child rape and molestation and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.
27.  On 27 October 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
28.  On 5 December 2012 the Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region granted the applicant’s request for commutation of his prison sentence in view of the latest amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and reduced the applicant’s sentence by one year.
29.  On 26 February 2013 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 December 2012 on appeal.
30.  On 12 April 2011 the applicant brought a claim against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for the authorities’ failure to determine the criminal charges against him within a reasonable time.
31.  On 26 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had lasted three years, four months and twelve days. With reference to the particular circumstances of the case and relying on the relevant criteria of the Court’s case-law, the court considered such a period reasonable. On 7 October 2011 the judgment of 26 May 2011 was upheld on appeal.
32.  Pending investigation and trial the applicant was detained in a temporary detention centre, remand prison no. IZ-21/1 and a psychiatric hospital in Cheboksary during the following periods: from 27 June 2007 to 4 February 2008, from 12 February to 27 March 2008, from 12 April to 5 November 2010. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention were inhuman and degrading.